Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
29 Connecticut opinions name it 2 courts 1964–2020 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Connecticut courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
State v. Tillmangreen2 sentences2016In so doing, the court reasoned that the corpus delicti rule as formulated in State v. Tillman, supra, 152 Conn. at 20 , 202 A.2d 494 , which required corroboration of "the specific kind of loss or injury embraced in the crime charged," should not apply in Harris because the crime of operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of liquor proscribes only conduct. 2016In so doing, the court reasoned that the corpus delicti rule as formulated in State v. Tillman, supra, 152 Conn. at 20 , 202 A.2d 494 , which required corroboration of "the specific kind of loss or injury embraced in the crime charged," should not apply in Harris because the crime of operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of liquor proscribes only conduct. | 4 | 9 |
Escarino-Carrillo v. United Statesgreen2 sentences2019The same logic applies, a fortiori, to the corpus delicti rule, which requires only that the trial court make the threshold determination that there are some ‘‘corroborating facts [that] tend to produce a con- fidence in the truth of the confession . . . .’’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Hafford, 252 Conn. 274, 317 , 746 A.2d 150 , cert. denied, 531 U.S. 855 , 121 S. Ct. 136 , 148 L. 2019The same logic applies, a fortiori, to the corpus delicti rule, which requires only that the trial court make the threshold determination that there are some ‘‘corroborating facts [that] tend to produce a con- fidence in the truth of the confession . . . .’’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Hafford, 252 Conn. 274, 317 , 746 A.2d 150 , cert. denied, 531 U.S. 855 , 121 S. Ct. 136 , 148 L. | 3 | 4 |
State v. Haffordgreen2 sentences2019The same logic applies, a fortiori, to the corpus delicti rule, which requires only that the trial court make the threshold determination that there are some ‘‘corroborating facts [that] tend to produce a con- fidence in the truth of the confession . . . .’’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Hafford, 252 Conn. 274, 317 , 746 A.2d 150 , cert. denied, 531 U.S. 855 , 121 S. Ct. 136 , 148 L. 2019The same logic applies, a fortiori, to the corpus delicti rule, which requires only that the trial court make the threshold determination that there are some ‘‘corroborating facts [that] tend to produce a con- fidence in the truth of the confession . . . .’’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Hafford, 252 Conn. 274, 317 , 746 A.2d 150 , cert. denied, 531 U.S. 855 , 121 S. Ct. 136 , 148 L. | 2 | 5 |
State v. Farnumgreen2 sentences2019See part I B 1 of this opinion. 11 The Appellate Court believed that it was bound by Uretek, notwithstand- ing our subsequent decision in State v. Farnum, supra, 275 Conn. 26 , because, in State v. Heredia, 139 Conn. App. 319 , 325 and n.3, 55 A.3d 598 (2012), cert. denied, 307 Conn. 952 , 58 A.3d 975 (2013), a different panel of the Appellate Court had announced that it would adhere to Uretek until that decision was expressly overruled by this court. 2019See part I B 1 of this opinion. 11 The Appellate Court believed that it was bound by Uretek, notwithstand- ing our subsequent decision in State v. Farnum, supra, 275 Conn. 26 , because, in State v. Heredia, 139 Conn. App. 319 , 325 and n.3, 55 A.3d 598 (2012), cert. denied, 307 Conn. 952 , 58 A.3d 975 (2013), a different panel of the Appellate Court had announced that it would adhere to Uretek until that decision was expressly overruled by this court. | 2 | 4 |
State v. Lalouchegreen2 sentences2019See State v. LaLouche, 116 Conn. 691 , 166 A. 252 (1933), overruled in part by State v. Tillman, 152 Conn. 15, 20 , 202 A.2d 494 (1964). 1964The defendant objected to the admission of such conversation, claiming it was a confession, and contended that the state had failed to offer sufficient preliminary proof of the corpus delicti under the rule laid down in cases such as State v. LaLouche, 116 Conn. 691, 693 ; State v. Skinner, 132 Conn. 163, 166 ; State v. Guastamachio, 137 Conn. 179, 182 ; and State v. Doucette, 147 Conn. 95, 100 . | 2 | 3 |
State v. Beverlygreen2 sentences2016Although the court in Beverly allowed the defendant to raise the corroboration rule in challenging the sufficiency of the evidence, the court also somewhat contradictorily stated: "The corpus delicti rule is a rule of evidence intended to protect an accused from conviction as a result of a baseless confession when no crime has in fact been committed." (Emphasis added.) Id., at 375 , 618 A.2d 1335 . 2016Although the court in Beverly allowed the defendant to raise the corroboration rule in challenging the sufficiency of the evidence, the court also somewhat contradictorily stated: "The corpus delicti rule is a rule of evidence intended to protect an accused from conviction as a result of a baseless confession when no crime has in fact been committed." (Emphasis added.) Id., at 375 , 618 A.2d 1335 . | 2 | 3 |
Warszower v. United Statesgreen2 sentences2019See Warszower v. United States, 312 U.S. 342, 347 , 61 S. Ct. 603 , 85 L. 2019See Warszower v. United States, 312 U.S. 342, 347 , 61 S. Ct. 603 , 85 L. | 2 | 3 |
State v. Herediagreen2 sentences2019See part I B 1 of this opinion. 11 The Appellate Court believed that it was bound by Uretek, notwithstand- ing our subsequent decision in State v. Farnum, supra, 275 Conn. 26 , because, in State v. Heredia, 139 Conn. App. 319 , 325 and n.3, 55 A.3d 598 (2012), cert. denied, 307 Conn. 952 , 58 A.3d 975 (2013), a different panel of the Appellate Court had announced that it would adhere to Uretek until that decision was expressly overruled by this court. 2019See part I B 1 of this opinion. 11 The Appellate Court believed that it was bound by Uretek, notwithstand- ing our subsequent decision in State v. Farnum, supra, 275 Conn. 26 , because, in State v. Heredia, 139 Conn. App. 319 , 325 and n.3, 55 A.3d 598 (2012), cert. denied, 307 Conn. 952 , 58 A.3d 975 (2013), a different panel of the Appellate Court had announced that it would adhere to Uretek until that decision was expressly overruled by this court. | 2 | 3 |
Wright v. Commissioner of Correctiongreen2 sentences2020In addressing these arguments, we are mindful that, although the corpus delicti rule requires the state to present evidence tending to corrob- orate the trustworthiness of the defendant’s inculpatory statements, that evidence ‘‘need not be sufficient, inde- pendent of the statements, to establish the corpus delicti.’’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Hafford, supra, 252 Conn. 316 ; see also State v. Andino, supra, 173 Conn. App. 877 . ‘‘The purpose of the corpus delicti rule is not to erase any doubt as to the accuracy of the accused’s inculpatory statement, but to assure that such 2020In addressing these arguments, we are mindful that, although the corpus delicti rule requires the state to present evidence tending to corrob- orate the trustworthiness of the defendant’s inculpatory statements, that evidence ‘‘need not be sufficient, inde- pendent of the statements, to establish the corpus delicti.’’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Hafford, supra, 252 Conn. 316 ; see also State v. Andino, supra, 173 Conn. App. 877 . ‘‘The purpose of the corpus delicti rule is not to erase any doubt as to the accuracy of the accused’s inculpatory statement, but to assure that such | 2 | 2 |
State v. Cartagreen2 sentences2019Although our cases contain earlier references to the rule; see, e.g., State v. Carta, 90 Conn. 79, 83 , 96 A. 411 (1916); the corpus delicti rule was first fully articulated in 1933. 2019Although our cases contain earlier references to the rule; see, e.g., State v. Carta, 90 Conn. 79, 83 , 96 A. 411 (1916); the corpus delicti rule was first fully articulated in 1933. | 2 | 2 |
Pagano v. Ippolitigreen2 sentences2019See, e.g., Pagano v. Ippoliti, 245 Conn. 640, 656 , 716 A.2d 848 (1998) (McDonald, J., dissenting); see also State v. Beverly, 224 Conn. 372, 375 , 618 A.2d 1335 (1993) (‘‘[t]he corpus delicti rule is a rule of evi- dence’’). 2019See, e.g., Pagano v. Ippoliti, 245 Conn. 640, 656 , 716 A.2d 848 (1998) (McDonald, J., dissenting); see also State v. Beverly, 224 Conn. 372, 375 , 618 A.2d 1335 (1993) (‘‘[t]he corpus delicti rule is a rule of evi- dence’’). | 2 | 2 |
Wong Sun v. United Statesgreen2 sentences2019See Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471 , 489–90 n.15, 83 S. Ct. 407 , 9 L. 2019See Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471 , 489–90 n.15, 83 S. Ct. 407 , 9 L. | 2 | 2 |
Langevin v. Stategreen2 sentences2019See, e.g., Langevin v. State, 258 P.3d 866, 873 (Alaska App. 2011) (‘‘[M]ost American jurisdictions follow the implicit element approach to corpus delicti. . . . 2019See, e.g., Langevin v. State, 258 P.3d 866, 873 (Alaska App. 2011) (‘‘[M]ost American jurisdictions follow the implicit element approach to corpus delicti. . . . | 2 | 2 |
| United States v. Dhawndric McDowellgreen | 2 | 2 |
State v. Goldinggreen2 sentences2017As the defendant acknowledges, in State v. Leniart , 166 Conn.App. 142 , 151, 140 A.3d 1026 , cert. granted, 323 Conn. 918 , 150 A.3d 1149 , and cert. granted, 323 Conn. 918 , 149 A.3d 499 (2016), 10 this court recognized "that under Connecticut law the corpus delicti rule is an evidentiary rule regarding the admissibility of confessions rather than a substantive rule of criminal law to be applied in reviewing the sufficiency of the state's evidence." With respect to the reviewability of corpus delicti claims, the court stated: "A defendant who fails to challenge the admissibility of the defen 2017As the defendant acknowledges, in State v. Leniart , 166 Conn.App. 142 , 151, 140 A.3d 1026 , cert. granted, 323 Conn. 918 , 150 A.3d 1149 , and cert. granted, 323 Conn. 918 , 149 A.3d 499 (2016), 10 this court recognized "that under Connecticut law the corpus delicti rule is an evidentiary rule regarding the admissibility of confessions rather than a substantive rule of criminal law to be applied in reviewing the sufficiency of the state's evidence." With respect to the reviewability of corpus delicti claims, the court stated: "A defendant who fails to challenge the admissibility of the defen | 1 | 6 |
State v. Harrisgreen2 sentences2000The defendant argues that State v. Tillman, supra, 152 Conn. 15 , establishes the corpus delicti rule for crimes that result in a certain injury or loss, and that the rule of State v. Harris, supra, 215 Conn. 189 , applies only to those crimes that prohibit conduct but do not result in an injury or loss. 1991In State v. Harris, 215 Conn. 189, 193-96 , 575 A.2d 223 (1990), the court further liberalized the corpus delicti rule “when the crime charged prohibits certain conduct but does not encompass a specific harm, loss or injury. . . .” This further liberalization, however, is not implicated in the present case. | 1 | 5 |
State v. Uretek, Inc.green2 sentences2019Believing itself to be bound by cases such as State v. Uretek, Inc., 207 Conn. 706 , 543 A.2d 709 (1988) (Ure- tek), a majority of the Appellate Court held that the corpus delicti rule is merely an evidentiary rule that bars the use of a defendant’s own uncorroborated extra- judicial confessions or admissions6 to prove the corpus delicti of a crime. 2019Believing itself to be bound by cases such as State v. Uretek, Inc., 207 Conn. 706 , 543 A.2d 709 (1988) (Ure- tek), a majority of the Appellate Court held that the corpus delicti rule is merely an evidentiary rule that bars the use of a defendant’s own uncorroborated extra- judicial confessions or admissions6 to prove the corpus delicti of a crime. | 1 | 5 |
Gonzales-Lemus v. Californiagreen2 sentences2019The same logic applies, a fortiori, to the corpus delicti rule, which requires only that the trial court make the threshold determination that there are some ‘‘corroborating facts [that] tend to produce a con- fidence in the truth of the confession . . . .’’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Hafford, 252 Conn. 274, 317 , 746 A.2d 150 , cert. denied, 531 U.S. 855 , 121 S. Ct. 136 , 148 L. 2019The same logic applies, a fortiori, to the corpus delicti rule, which requires only that the trial court make the threshold determination that there are some ‘‘corroborating facts [that] tend to produce a con- fidence in the truth of the confession . . . .’’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Hafford, 252 Conn. 274, 317 , 746 A.2d 150 , cert. denied, 531 U.S. 855 , 121 S. Ct. 136 , 148 L. | 1 | 4 |
Johnson v. McCaughtrygreen2 sentences2019The same logic applies, a fortiori, to the corpus delicti rule, which requires only that the trial court make the threshold determination that there are some ‘‘corroborating facts [that] tend to produce a con- fidence in the truth of the confession . . . .’’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Hafford, 252 Conn. 274, 317 , 746 A.2d 150 , cert. denied, 531 U.S. 855 , 121 S. Ct. 136 , 148 L. 2019The same logic applies, a fortiori, to the corpus delicti rule, which requires only that the trial court make the threshold determination that there are some ‘‘corroborating facts [that] tend to produce a con- fidence in the truth of the confession . . . .’’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Hafford, 252 Conn. 274, 317 , 746 A.2d 150 , cert. denied, 531 U.S. 855 , 121 S. Ct. 136 , 148 L. | 1 | 4 |
| United States v. G. Timothy Marshallgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Davila v. United Statesgreen | 1 | 1 |
| McCabe v. United Statesgreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Halsteadgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Robert Henry Landsdown v. United Statesgreen | 1 | 1 |
| United States v. Joseph A. Johnson, Jr. Also Known as \Joe Bossgreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Ruthgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Connecticut. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Arnold
green
2 sentences2016The corpus delicti rule, which is often also referred to as the corroboration rule, exists "to protect against conviction of offenses that have not, in fact, occurred, in other words, to prevent errors in convictions based solely upon untrue confessions to nonexistent crimes." State v. Arnold, 201 Conn. 276 , 287, 514 A.2d 330 (1986). 2016The corpus delicti rule, which is often also referred to as the corroboration rule, exists "to protect against conviction of offenses that have not, in fact, occurred, in other words, to prevent errors in convictions based solely upon untrue confessions to nonexistent crimes." State v. Arnold, 201 Conn. 276 , 287, 514 A.2d 330 (1986). | 6 | 1991–2016 |
State v. Leniart
green
2 sentences2020State v. Leniart, 323 Conn. 918 , 150 A.3d 1149 (2016). [The Supreme Court] also granted the defendant’s petition for certification to appeal, limited to the question of whether [this court] properly applied the corpus delicti rule in concluding that there was sufficient evidence to sustain his convic- tion of murder and capital felony. 2017As the defendant acknowledges, in State v. Leniart , 166 Conn.App. 142 , 151, 140 A.3d 1026 , cert. granted, 323 Conn. 918 , 150 A.3d 1149 , and cert. granted, 323 Conn. 918 , 149 A.3d 499 (2016), 10 this court recognized "that under Connecticut law the corpus delicti rule is an evidentiary rule regarding the admissibility of confessions rather than a substantive rule of criminal law to be applied in reviewing the sufficiency of the state's evidence." With respect to the reviewability of corpus delicti claims, the court stated: "A defendant who fails to challenge the admissibility of the defen | 4 | 2017–2020 |
State v. Adams
green
2 sentences2016As a result, because the defendant’s confessions may be considered by this court in assessing the sufficiency of the evidence, we apply the traditional standard of review in assessing the evidence and conclude that the evidence was sufficient for the jury to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that A.P. is dead.’’ 6 State v. Golding, 213 Conn. 233 , 239–40, 567 A.2d 823 (1989), holding modified by In re Yasiel R., 317 Conn. 773 , 781, 120 A.3d 1188 (2015). 7 Specifically, I disagree with that portion of the majority opinion that holds that ‘‘under Connecticut law the corpus delicti rule is an e 2016As a result, because the defendant’s confessions may be considered by this court in assessing the sufficiency of the evidence, we apply the traditional standard of review in assessing the evidence and conclude that the evidence was sufficient for the jury to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that A.P. is dead.’’ 6 State v. Golding, 213 Conn. 233 , 239–40, 567 A.2d 823 (1989), holding modified by In re Yasiel R., 317 Conn. 773 , 781, 120 A.3d 1188 (2015). 7 Specifically, I disagree with that portion of the majority opinion that holds that ‘‘under Connecticut law the corpus delicti rule is an e | 3 | 2016–2020 |
Helmedach v. Comm'r of Corr.
green
2 sentences2020Our Supreme Court granted the defendant’s petition for certification to appeal limited to the question of whether ‘‘the Appellate Court properly conclude[d] that the corpus delicti rule is merely a rule of admissibility, in determining that there was sufficient evidence to sustain the defendant’s second conviction of risk of injury to a child . . . .’’ State v. Robert H., 323 Conn. 940 , 151 A.3d 845 (2016). 2019We granted certification, limited to the following question: ‘‘Did the Appellate Court properly conclude that the corpus delicti rule is merely a rule of admissibility, in determin- ing that there was sufficient evidence to sustain the defendant’s second conviction of risk of injury to a child in violation of . . . § 53-21 (a) (1)?’’ State v. Robert H., 323 Conn. 940 , 151 A.3d 845 (2016). | 3 | 2017–2020 |
Heisinger v. Dillon
green
2 sentences2020Our Supreme Court granted the defendant’s petition for certification to appeal limited to the question of whether ‘‘the Appellate Court properly conclude[d] that the corpus delicti rule is merely a rule of admissibility, in determining that there was sufficient evidence to sustain the defendant’s second conviction of risk of injury to a child . . . .’’ State v. Robert H., 323 Conn. 940 , 151 A.3d 845 (2016). 2019We granted certification, limited to the following question: ‘‘Did the Appellate Court properly conclude that the corpus delicti rule is merely a rule of admissibility, in determin- ing that there was sufficient evidence to sustain the defendant’s second conviction of risk of injury to a child in violation of . . . § 53-21 (a) (1)?’’ State v. Robert H., 323 Conn. 940 , 151 A.3d 845 (2016). | 3 | 2017–2020 |
State v. Robert H.
green
2 sentences2016The defendant's petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 168 Conn.App. 419 , 146 A.3d 995 (2016), is granted, limited to the following issue: "Did the Appellate Court properly conclude that the corpus delicti rule is merely a rule of admissibility, in determining that there was sufficient evidence to sustain the defendant's second conviction of risk of injury to a child in violation of General Statutes § 53-21(a)(1) ?" 2016The defendant's petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 168 Conn.App. 419 , 146 A.3d 995 (2016), is granted, limited to the following issue: "Did the Appellate Court properly conclude that the corpus delicti rule is merely a rule of admissibility, in determining that there was sufficient evidence to sustain the defendant's second conviction of risk of injury to a child in violation of General Statutes § 53-21(a)(1) ?" | 3 | 2016–2019 |
Cook v. Comm'r of Corr.
green
2 sentences2020State v. Leniart, 323 Conn. 918 , 150 A.3d 1149 (2016). [The Supreme Court] also granted the defendant’s petition for certification to appeal, limited to the question of whether [this court] properly applied the corpus delicti rule in concluding that there was sufficient evidence to sustain his convic- tion of murder and capital felony. 2017As the defendant acknowledges, in State v. Leniart , 166 Conn.App. 142 , 151, 140 A.3d 1026 , cert. granted, 323 Conn. 918 , 150 A.3d 1149 , and cert. granted, 323 Conn. 918 , 149 A.3d 499 (2016), 10 this court recognized "that under Connecticut law the corpus delicti rule is an evidentiary rule regarding the admissibility of confessions rather than a substantive rule of criminal law to be applied in reviewing the sufficiency of the state's evidence." With respect to the reviewability of corpus delicti claims, the court stated: "A defendant who fails to challenge the admissibility of the defen | 2 | 2017–2020 |
Haughey v. Comm'r of Corr.
green
2 sentences2020In other words, ‘‘[t]he present version of the corpus delicti rule, which applies to the admission of inculpa- tory statements involving all types of crimes, requires that the state present corroborative evidence to estab- lish the trustworthiness of the statement, but that such evidence need not be sufficient, independent of the statements, to establish the corpus delicti.’’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Andino, 173 Conn. App. 851, 877 , 162 A.3d 736 (quoting State v. Hafford, supra, 252 Conn. 316 ), cert. denied, 327 Conn. 906 , 170 A.3d 3 (2017). 2020In other words, ‘‘[t]he present version of the corpus delicti rule, which applies to the admission of inculpa- tory statements involving all types of crimes, requires that the state present corroborative evidence to estab- lish the trustworthiness of the statement, but that such evidence need not be sufficient, independent of the statements, to establish the corpus delicti.’’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Andino, 173 Conn. App. 851, 877 , 162 A.3d 736 (quoting State v. Hafford, supra, 252 Conn. 316 ), cert. denied, 327 Conn. 906 , 170 A.3d 3 (2017). | 2 | 2020–2020 |
State v. Andino
green
2 sentences2020In other words, ‘‘[t]he present version of the corpus delicti rule, which applies to the admission of inculpa- tory statements involving all types of crimes, requires that the state present corroborative evidence to estab- lish the trustworthiness of the statement, but that such evidence need not be sufficient, independent of the statements, to establish the corpus delicti.’’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Andino, 173 Conn. App. 851, 877 , 162 A.3d 736 (quoting State v. Hafford, supra, 252 Conn. 316 ), cert. denied, 327 Conn. 906 , 170 A.3d 3 (2017). 2020In other words, ‘‘[t]he present version of the corpus delicti rule, which applies to the admission of inculpa- tory statements involving all types of crimes, requires that the state present corroborative evidence to estab- lish the trustworthiness of the statement, but that such evidence need not be sufficient, independent of the statements, to establish the corpus delicti.’’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Andino, 173 Conn. App. 851, 877 , 162 A.3d 736 (quoting State v. Hafford, supra, 252 Conn. 316 ), cert. denied, 327 Conn. 906 , 170 A.3d 3 (2017). | 2 | 2020–2020 |
State v. Robert H.
green
2 sentences2020Following oral argument before this court, we stayed this appeal pending our Supreme Court’s decisions in State v. Leniart, 333 Conn. 88 , 215 A.3d 1104 (2019), and State v. Robert H., 333 Conn. 172 , 214 A.3d 343 (2019). 2020Following oral argument before this court, we stayed this appeal pending our Supreme Court’s decisions in State v. Leniart, 333 Conn. 88 , 215 A.3d 1104 (2019), and State v. Robert H., 333 Conn. 172 , 214 A.3d 343 (2019). | 2 | 2020–2020 |
State v. Andino
green
2 sentences2020In other words, ‘‘[t]he present version of the corpus delicti rule, which applies to the admission of inculpa- tory statements involving all types of crimes, requires that the state present corroborative evidence to estab- lish the trustworthiness of the statement, but that such evidence need not be sufficient, independent of the statements, to establish the corpus delicti.’’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Andino, 173 Conn. App. 851, 877 , 162 A.3d 736 (quoting State v. Hafford, supra, 252 Conn. 316 ), cert. denied, 327 Conn. 906 , 170 A.3d 3 (2017). 2020In other words, ‘‘[t]he present version of the corpus delicti rule, which applies to the admission of inculpa- tory statements involving all types of crimes, requires that the state present corroborative evidence to estab- lish the trustworthiness of the statement, but that such evidence need not be sufficient, independent of the statements, to establish the corpus delicti.’’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Andino, 173 Conn. App. 851, 877 , 162 A.3d 736 (quoting State v. Hafford, supra, 252 Conn. 316 ), cert. denied, 327 Conn. 906 , 170 A.3d 3 (2017). | 2 | 2020–2020 |
Luurtsema v. Commissioner of Correction
green
2 sentences2019It is true that ‘‘[t]he adoption of the comprehensive Penal Code in 1969 abrogated the common-law authority of Connecti- cut courts to impose criminal liability for conduct not proscribed by the legislature.’’ Luurtsema v. Commis- sioner of Correction, 299 Conn. 740, 772 , 12 A.3d 817 (2011). 2019It is true that ‘‘[t]he adoption of the comprehensive Penal Code in 1969 abrogated the common-law authority of Connecti- cut courts to impose criminal liability for conduct not proscribed by the legislature.’’ Luurtsema v. Commis- sioner of Correction, 299 Conn. 740, 772 , 12 A.3d 817 (2011). | 2 | 2019–2019 |
| State v. Leniart green | 2 | 2016–2017 |
| State v. DelVecchio green | 2 | 1993–2016 |
| Jackson v. Virginia red | 2 | 2016–2016 |
| Opper v. United States green | 2 | 1990–2016 |
| State v. Evans green | 2 | 1989–2016 |
| State v. Doucette green | 2 | 1964–2016 |
| State v. Grant green | 2 | 1983–1996 |
| State v. Pena neutral | 2 | 1986–1991 |
| State v. Victor C. green | 1 | 2017–2017 |
| United States v. Daryl E. Singleterry green | 1 | 2016–2016 |
| State v. Oliveras green | 1 | 2016–2016 |
| United States v. Dickerson, Mark A. green | 1 | 2016–2016 |
| State v. Courchesne green | 1 | 2016–2016 |
| State v. Miles green | 1 | 2016–2016 |
| Singleterry v. United States green | 1 | 2016–2016 |
| State v. Cobb green | 1 | 2004–2004 |
| State v. Kari neutral | 1 | 1993–1993 |
| State v. Kari neutral | 1 | 1993–1993 |
| State v. Skinner green | 1 | 1964–1964 |
| State v. Guastamachio neutral | 1 | 1964–1964 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.